Do you have any doubt that your children and grandchildren

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

someday will be scrambling to rationalize why the LDS Church was so cruel and hateful toward homosexuals? I don't. It's a matter of time before this becomes another source of shame to members.

I kind of agree with SU on this though with a different spin. For example, the pamphlet on homosexuality from the 70's that was posted here had a lot of language that sounds pretty bad today. But it's understandable because we know old timers or ignorant people that still talk that way, and acknowledge it as a relic of the past, and that we're evolving and becoming more intelligent, enlightened, and empathetic as a culture and as a church over time.

So I definitely agree that in 50 years, that pamphlet and other things taught about homosexuality will probably sound downright sickeningly offensive and cruel to ears that haven't lived long enough to see the evolution.

There are ugly comments/church teachings about sexism and racism in the past that are embrassing. There will be more topics that over time are proved to be more cultural than doctrinal and will be corrected.

This sort of thing doesn't bother me terribly.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I kind of agree with SU on this though with a different spin. For example, the pamphlet on homosexuality from the 70's that was posted here had a lot of language that sounds pretty bad today. But it's understandable because we know old timers or ignorant people that still talk that way, and acknowledge it as a relic of the past, and that we're evolving and becoming more intelligent, enlightened, and empathetic as a culture and as a church over time.

So I definitely agree that in 50 years, that pamphlet and other things taught about homosexuality will probably sound downright sickeningly offensive and cruel to ears that haven't lived long enough to see the evolution.

There are ugly comments/church teachings about sexism and racism in the past that are embrassing. There will be more topics that over time are proved to be more cultural than doctrinal and will be corrected.

This sort of thing doesn't bother me terribly.

Yeah, I think that will be what will happen, but probably sooner. I've already has such discussions with my daughter.

[SeattleUte]

Supporting the anti-gay marriage constitutional law amendment is itself cruel and hateful. I think you could make a case for someone exercising their free speech rights to pursuade people to vote no in a gay marriage initiative, or lobbying the legislature against gay marriage, or even bringing a lawsuit. But to favor polluting the Bill of Rights in this manner is really, really reprehensible.

Every once in a while the LDS Church makes you wonder if it has changed, or just changed appearances, and this is one of those instances. It really doesn't care about states rights or community rights. It's just ant-homosexual.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Supporting the anti-gay marriage constitutional law amendment is itself cruel and hateful. I think you could make a case for someone exercising their free speech rights to pursuade people to vote no in a gay marriage initiative, or lobbying the legislature against gay marriage, or even bringing a lawsuit. But to favor polluting the Bill of Rights in this manner is really, really reprehensible.

Every once in a while the LDS Church makes you wonder if it has changed, or just changed appearances, and this is one of those instances. It really doesn't care about states rights or community rights. It's just ant-homosexual.

Cry me a river. You sound like a pansy right now. Try on your dancing ballet shoes now.

Cruel to deny a right that somebody doesn't have and doesn't need? This isn't a right of suffrage, a right to the free enjoyment of property.

They can still shack up with whomever they wish, they can have domestic partnerships, so somebody voting down an esoteric right is cruel and hateful? You lived in a very sheltered world where the Ivy covering your mansions distorts your view.

[CardiacCoug]

Yeah, if we're against homosexual sex as sinful we should actually be promoting gay marriage as a means of decreasing the total amount of homosexual sex. And by promoting adoption by gay couples we could decrease the amount of homosexual sex even more. Then we could go ahead and make the gay guy with adopted kids a Bishop or Stake President and he would never have time for sex at all -- mission accomplished.

Marriages don't really count unless they are in the temple anyway, so I honestly don't know why the Church cares about gay marriage so much. I guess the goal is to shame as many gay Mormons as possible into a life of frustrated celibacy.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Cry me a river. You sound like a pansy right now. Try on your dancing ballet shoes now.

Cruel to deny a right that somebody doesn't have and doesn't need? This isn't a right of suffrage, a right to the free enjoyment of property.

They can still shack up with whomever they wish, they can have domestic partnerships, so somebody voting down an esoteric right is cruel and hateful? You lived in a very sheltered world where the Ivy covering your mansions distorts your view.

Do you think there's a difference between just shacking up with a woman and marrying her, regardless of children? Gays seem to think there is, and apparently most heterosxuals do, regardless of children.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Do you think there's a difference between just shacking up with a woman and marrying her, regardless of children? Gays seem to think there is, and apparently most heterosxuals do, regardless of children.

To me it's really an argument for legitimacy. In one respect, I no longer care, but when I hear hysteria over bullshit, then it makes me puke.

If you just want to shack up, shack up.

If you want to bind your heart to somebody, do you need marriage? No. It can be done without the legal niceties, and you can do legal stuff to accommodate your partner.

There is nothing cruel in arguing against gay marriage. It may ultimately lose, but the hysteria on both sides is unwarranted.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

To me it's really an argument for legitimacy.

Isn't that enough. Thank you, SU wins.

I'm really not going any further with you on this. I know your opinion and it's internally inconsistent and hate filled, and the legitimacy point is really the point anyway.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Isn't that enough. Thank you, SU wins.

I'm really not going any further with you on this. I know your opinion and it's internally inconsistent and hate filled, and the legitimacy point is really the point anyway.

You sound like my children.

I'm afraid of your argument so I won't talk to you any more.

And then you make a nice declarative statement, "you're a hatemonger." Nice ad hominem, devoid of real analysis. Finding a marriage of two gays to not fit within one's personal view of a legitimate marriage is not a matter of hate. It's a matter of a different socio-economic perspective. They can what they wish, as they will in any event.

So I'll use your wonderful debate technique. I'm right and you're wrong.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Adam

I'm surprised by this response Arch. Are you just reacting badly to the messenger?

I believe that rights are endowed by our creator and among those rights are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. For some individuals the pursuit of happiness includes more than just the free enjoyment of property. For some the pursuit of happiness encompasses a mutually agreed upon life-partnership with someone of the same gender. I don't claim to understand why that is so, but millions of people assure me that it is so for them. It is what it is.

So I just don't understand your language of the state decreeing that there is no right held by the sovereign and endowed citizenry to pursue happiness in the way in which they are wired. They desire the tax and probate and other legal rights that society grants to opposite gender couples who desire those rights (I'll call them "Marriage Rights"). I would ask where in our social contract did we grant our government the power to deny Marriage Rights to individuals based on gender discrimination? I haven't found this clause. Is your argument a cite to tradition alone--a true conservative position?

Because I can't find the clause so saying, and because I find "because it has always been that way" a fairly weak position of argument, I think the correct constitutional position under current laws is to provide equal protection to all couples, regardless of gender, regarding Marriage Rights. If we want to discriminate on the basis of gender regarding Marriage Rights, I think we need to amend our social contract to do so.

So I think the Defense of Marriage Act is an unconstitutional law and the only way to accomplish the LDS Chruch's goal would be a Traditional Marriage Amendment to the Constitution--something along the lines of:

Discrimination on the basis of gender is permitted by local, state and federal government entities in regards to the term "marriage" (and its derivatives) and rights historically associated with marriage.

Or if you wanted to dictate to the states, it could go like this:

All governmental entities at all levels must discriminate on the basis of gender and may only extend the title "married" (and its derivatives) and those rights historically associated with marriage to couples of opposing genders.

As to the cruel and hateful coloring--I think discrimination is always born of hate and is always cruel. Most Mormons would admit that they hate the sin of homosexual coupling. Most homosexual couples would say it feels cruel to them to deny them basic Marriage Rights.

To say the current LDS position towards same-gender marriage is not cruel or hateful is to ignore its affect on those it impacts. I don't doubt your heart is pure and loving. But isn't it the impact on the target that matters in the analysis? If they feel hated and cruelly treated, and we are made to understand this, don't we have some responsibility?

I'm not making a legal argument, I'm making a judgment in a society that significantly accepts gay relationships, a desire to not merge heterosexual marriage with gay relationships is not based on the motive of hate. There's nothing cruel about it whatsoever.

Geeze, they can get laid when they want, they can have reciprocal revocable trusts, and they often can get insurance. If some do not wish to define marriage as two gays, that isn't hate.

In fact, part of it is just being turned off by the notion I have to accept a PC definition because I'm told so. Well f... that. I can use labels as I desire when I desire.

None of you pansy asses have seen true cruelty. or true hate. I've seen but a small smidgeon of it, and desiring to retain a certain meaning for a certain word isn't it.